E. JEEVANANDAM versus N. KOTESWARA RAO & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 1 S.C.R. 1099 · Decided: 23-01-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1099
1099
   [2023] 1 S.C.R. 1099
E. JEEVANANDAM
v.
N. KOTESWARA RAO & ORS.
(Special Leave Petition (C) No.27337 of 2017)
JANUARY 23, 2023
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI,
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND J. B. PARDIWALA, JJ.]
Public Amenity – Sewerage facilities to the area – Claim of
petitioner over the land on which the proposed sewerage line was
sought to be laid – A resolution was passed by the local body to
provide sewerage facilities to the area enclosing a list of streets –
The petitioner purchased the property in 2011, inclusive of the road
over which the proposed sewerage line was sought to be laid – The
sewerage main was laid down both upstream and downstream except
to the extent of the 110 meters (land of petitioner) – After various
rounds of the litigation, the Division Bench of the High Court
directed the State Government to choose a better option so as to
minimize the  damage that could be caused to the petitioner by laying
the sewer main and sewer pumping station in the land of the
petitioner – PIL filed on behalf of the residents who sought a
direction for the completion of the underground drainage work so
as to enable them to have the benefit of a sewerage facility –
Division Bench of the High Court disposed of the petition by
directing the Board to lay the pipelines and complete the
underground drainage – On appeal, held: In the absence of an
order of stay, the work of laying the sewerage line was completed –
The developmental work which was carried out by the Board is in
the form of a public amenity to the residents of the area – The title
of the petitioner is not free from doubt since it is the subject matter
of a civil dispute – Setting aside the impugned order of the Division
Bench would give rise to further complications – Ultimately, the
claim of the petitioner at the highest would be for the payment of
damages – Therefore, petitioner granted liberty to pursue his rights
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1100
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 1 S.C.R.
and remedies for establishing a case of compensation and for the
award of damages subject to his rights to the land being established
in a competent court – Special Leave Petitions disposed of.
EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL JURISDICTION : Special Leave
Petition (C) No.27337 of 2017.
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.10.2017 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition No.25595 of 2017.
With
Special Leave Petition (C) No.35197 of 2017
Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr. Adv., Vivek Singh, C. P. Rajwar, Rohan
Chandra, Ms. Somi Sharma, Chandra Prakash, Ms. Rakhi Ray, D.
Kumanan, Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, Vinodh Kanna B., Advs. for the
appearing parties.
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI
1. The petitioner was the Chairperson of the erstwhile
Maduravoyal Town Panchayat. On 28 November 2001, during his tenure
as Chairperson, a resolution was passed by the local body to provide
sewerage facilities to the area enclosing a list of streets in which ward
No 147 of Rukmani Nagar Road, Chennai was included. A scheme was
prepared in terms of the request made by the local body.
2. On 3 June 2009, the Government accorded administrative
sanction for spending an amount of Rs 57.45 crores. The scheme
commenced on 18 August 2009. Sewerage facilities were laid since
there was no objection except for an area covering 110 meters at Rukmani
Nagar Road. The sewerage main was laid down both upstream and
downstream of Rukmani Nagar except to the extent of the 110 meters.
The petitioner purchased the property in 2011, inclusive of the road over
which the proposed sewerage line was sought to be laid.
3. Certain civil disputes are pending before the civil court as regards
the claim of the petitioner in regard to the ownership of the land. Notice
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1101
was issued to the petitioner under Section 67(3) of the Chennai
Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Act, 19781. The petitioner
suggested that an alternative route should be taken for laying the
sewerage line. On 19 June 2015, an order was passed invoking the
provisions of Section 67(3) of the 1978 Act. This gave rise to a writ
petition at the behest of the petitioner.
4. During the course of the hearing of the writ petition, the Single
Judge was informed that almost the entire work was completed save
and except to the extent of 110 meters along the Rukmani Nagar Road.
The Single Judge held that the residents of three streets would be deprived
of sewerage facilities if a realignment as sought by the petitioner were
to be granted. The Si

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.